Agenda and minutes

Licensing Hearing Panel - Tuesday, 4 August 2026 9.30am

Venue: St George's Centre, Pembroke, Chatham Maritime, Chatham ME4 4UH. View directions

Contact: Nicola Couchman & Julie Francis-Beard, Democratic Services Officers 

Note: Following the end of the livestream, the meeting was re-opened following the discussions between the parties present at the meeting, resulting in the Panel making a final decision on the application 

Media

Items
No. Item

181.

Election of the Chairperson

The Panel is requested to elect a Chairperson for the hearing in line with rules agreed by the Licensing and Safety Committee. 

Minutes:

The Panel elected Councillor Howcroft-Scott as Chairperson for this hearing in line with the rules agreed by the Licensing and Safety Committee.

182.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

There were none.

183.

Record of the meeting

To agree that the Chairperson, after consultation with the other members of the Panel, sign the record of this meeting outside the meeting. 

Minutes:

It was agreed that the Chairperson, after consultation with the other members of the Panel, would sign the record of this meeting outside the meeting.

184.

Urgent matters by reason of special circumstances

The Chairperson will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

Minutes:

There were none. 

185.

Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and Other Significant Interests pdf icon PDF 371 KB

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct. Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 5.

Minutes:

Disclosable pecuniary interests

 

There were none.

 

Other significant interests (OSIs)

 

There were none.

 

Other interests

 

There were none.

186.

Licensing Act 2003 Full Variation Premises Application for the Licence at Cricketers, Sturdee Avenue, Gillingham, ME7 3JR pdf icon PDF 118 KB

To consider a full variation premises application for the Cricketers, Sturdee Avenue, Gillingham following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Discussion:

 

The Chairperson explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined on page 4 of the agenda and noted that the applicant had received a copy of the “Guidelines for Licensing Hearing Panels”.

 

The Assistant Licensing Manager informed the Panel that on 18 June 2026 the applicant had applied for a full variation of the premises licence for the Cricketers, Sturdee Avenue, Gillingham, ME7 3JR. The application sought to extend the hours for the sale of alcohol and regulated entertainment hours until 00:00 on Sunday to Wednesday and until 01:00 on Thursday to Saturday. It also sought to extend the hours for late night refreshments from 23:00 to 01:00 on Thursday to Saturday and to add late night refreshments 23:00 to 00:00 on Sunday to Wednesday. The variation also included the use of an outdoor bar.

 

The Assistant Licensing Manager confirmed that conditions had been agreed with Trading Standards and Kent Police. Seven video clips had been submitted by the objectors, however, owing to compatibility issues, only three of the clips could be viewed during the hearing.

 

The Assistant Licensing Manager confirmed that all responsible authorities had been consulted in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 and that representations had been received from members of the public.

 

The Chairperson invited the applicant and their representative to speak in support of their application. 

 

Mr Piers Warne, Legal Director from TLT, representing Punch Taverns Limited and the applicant informed the Panel that the application comprised two elements. The first sought to amend the plans to include an outside bar and to incorporate the five conditions set out on page 8 of the agenda. The second sought to extend the licensed hours throughout the week by one hour, with an additional one and a half hrs on Sundays.

 

Mr Warne advised that, following submission of the application, the applicant had amended the proposal and no longer sought extended hours for regulated entertainment. The hours for regulated entertainment would, therefore, remain unchanged at 23:00 from Monday to Wednesday and 00:00 from Thursday to Saturday. On Sundays, it was proposed that the hours for regulated entertainment would be extended from 22:30 to 23:00.

 

Mr Warne acknowledged the objections raised by local residents and advised that a dedicated telephone number would be made available to enable local residents to contact the premises directly should any urgent issues arise.

 

Mr Warne confirmed that conditions had been agreed with Trading Standards and Kent Police and, consequently, neither authority had submitted further objections to the application or were in attendance at the hearing. He referred the Panel to the conditions agreed with Trading Standards, set out on page 39 of the agenda, and those agreed with Kent Police, set out on pages 41-45.  He further advised that additional conditions had been agreed with Kent Police following an incident during the football World Cup, as detailed on page 41 of the agenda.

 

Mr Warne advised the Panel that the Cricketers had been a public house for many years.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 186.

187.

Exclusion of the press and public pdf icon PDF 96 KB

It is recommended that the Panel exclude the press and public from the meeting during the decision-making process for the reasons set out in the report. 

Minutes:

Decision:

 

The press and public were excluded from the meeting during the Panel’s deliberations and decision making in respect of agenda item 6, because consideration of this matter in public would disclosure information falling within paragraph  5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as specified in agenda item 7 (Exclusion of the Press and Public) and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Panel considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.